Journal of Human Reproductive Science
Home Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives
   Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size    Users online: 3073


 
   Table of Contents     
AUTHORíS REPLY  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 403
 

Does choosing microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?


1 IVF Lab, Mamata Fertility Hospital, Secunderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany

Date of Submission20-Nov-2022
Date of Decision20-Nov-2022
Date of Acceptance29-Nov-2022
Date of Web Publication30-Dec-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Suhasini Donthi
Mamata Fertility Hospital, 91-1-192, St. Mary's Road, Opp Prashant Theatre, Secunderabad - 500 003, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_161_22

Rights and Permissions

 



How to cite this article:
Srinivas S, Donthi S, Deenadayal A, Tolani AD, Deendayal M. Does choosing microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?. J Hum Reprod Sci 2022;15:403

How to cite this URL:
Srinivas S, Donthi S, Deenadayal A, Tolani AD, Deendayal M. Does choosing microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?. J Hum Reprod Sci [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 4];15:403. Available from: https://www.jhrsonline.org/text.asp?2022/15/4/403/366460


Thank you very much for your keen observations and comments. On behalf of entire authors team, I would like to appreciate your interest to go through the article and bringing up such an important comment.

In this article titled 'Does choosing Microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?' published in the journal of human reproduction in the August issue, we considered biochemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates and miscarriage rates as the final outcomes to compare the outcome of two different sperm processing techniques. Ours is a tertiary standalone fertility centre where we monitor the patients till Targeted Imaging for Fetal Anomalies scan after embryo transfer. Later the patient is referred to obstetrician of their choice for delivery. For this reason, we restricted the final outcome till clinical pregnancy which is clearly mentioned in the article. We agree with the reviewer's point that ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates would have given further scope for keen analysis. We will consider the suggestion and follow this in our future communications.

Yes! Microfluidics cannot process the larger volume of semen samples. In our study, all the cases were done by ICSI; hence, the issue of volume does not arise here.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.






 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
             

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (457 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  



 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed98    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded20    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal